Partial Privatization and Public Services Accountability: Evidence from Italy and Norway

  • Andrea Calabrò
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


Privatization processes have characterized and changed the public sector in many European countries. However, often they ended up with partial privatizations. In these cases, public service providers, organized in the form of joint stock companies, are still owned by the State. Different theoretical perspectives – New Public Management (NPM), New Public Service (NPS), and New Public Governance (NPG) – are used to discuss this issue highlighting open questions on corruption, unethical behaviours and lack of accountability. Through a cross-country case study analysis, the main features of the Italian and the Norwegian privatization processes are shown. The findings call attention to the stop and go characteristic of the Italian process and the reluctance of the Norwegian government to privatize. Both countries have Ministries which are still the major owners of companies providing public services. Furthermore, although Ministerial governance has different development in Italy and Norway, common patterns exist when coming to ethical and accountability concerns. Networked modes of governance and accountability seem to be reasonable alternatives to the lacks generated by partial privatization processes.


Public Service Unethical Behaviour Public Official Governance System State Ownership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Argento, D., Grossi, G., Tagesson, T., & Collin, S. O. (2010). The “externalisation” of local public service delivery: experience in Italy and Sweden. International Journal of Public Policy, 5(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barca, F., & Trento, S. (1997). State ownership and the evolution of Italian corporate governance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(3), 533–559.Google Scholar
  3. Bayliss, K. (2002). Privatization and poverty: The distributional impact of utility privatization. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73(4), 603–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bearse, P., Glomm, G., & Ravikumar, B. (2000). On the political economy of means-tested educational vouchers. European Economic Review, 44(4–6), 904–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjorvatn, K., & Soreide, T. (2005). Corruption and privatization. European Journal of Political Economy, 21(1), 903–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bognetti, G., & Robotti, L. (2007). The provision of local public services through mixed enterprises: The Italian case. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 78(3), 415–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). The adoption of voluntary codes of conduct in MNCs: A three-country comparative study. Business and Society Review, 109(4), 449–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boubakri, N., & Cosset, J. C. (1998). The financial and operating performance of newly privatized firms in developing countries. The Journal of Finance, 53(3), 1081–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Hart, P. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boycko, M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1996). A theory of privatisation. The Economic Journal, 106(3), 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bozeman, B. (2009). Public values theory: Three big questions. International Journal of Public Policy, 4(5), 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braithwaite, J. (2006). Accountability and responsibility through restorative justice. In M. Dowdle (Ed.), Public accountability: Designs, dilemmas and experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cafferata, R. (1995). Italian state-owned holdings, privatization and the dingle market. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 66(4), 401–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cassese, S. (1996). Le privatizzazioni in Italia. Stato e mercato, 47(2), 323–349.Google Scholar
  17. Chapman, R. A., & O’Toole, B. J. (1995). The role of the civil service: A traditional view in a period of change. Public Policy and Administration, 10(2), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christensen, T. (2003). Narratives of Norwegian governance: Elaborating the strong state tradition. Public Administration, 81(1), 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2001). New Public Management: Undermining political control? In T. Christensen & P. Legreid (Eds.), New Public Management. The transformation of ideas and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.Google Scholar
  21. Christensen, T., & Legreid, P. (2008). The study of public management in Norway. Combining organization theory and political science. In W. Kickert (Ed.), The study of public management in Europe and the US. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Christensen, T., & Legreid, P. (2009). Public Management reform in Norway: Reluctance and tensions. In G. Shaun & W. Joe (Eds.), International handbook of Public Management reform. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. Christensen, T., & Legreid, P. (2003). Coping with complex leadership roles: The problematic redefinition of government-owned enterprises. Public Administration, 81(4), 803–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Christensen, T., & Peters, B. G. (1999). Structure, culture and governance. A comparative analysis of Norway and the United States. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Cuervo, A., & Villalonga, B. (2000). Explaining the variance in the performance effects of privatization. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 581–590.Google Scholar
  26. De Nardis, S. (2000). Privatizzazioni, liberalizzazioni, sviluppo: introduzione e sintesi. In S. De Nardis (Ed.), Le privatizzazioni Italiane. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  27. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frederickson, H. G. (1999). Public ethics and the new managerialism. Public Integrity, 1(3), 265–278.Google Scholar
  29. Goldstein, A., & Nicoletti, G. (2003). Privatization in Italy 1993–2002: Goals, institutions, outcomes and outstanding issues. CESifo Conference on Privatization Experiences in the EU.Google Scholar
  30. Groot, T., & Budding, T. (2008). New public management’s current issues and future prospects. Financial Accountability and Management, 24(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grossi, G., & Reichard, C. (2008). Municipal corporatization in Germany and Italy. Public Management Review, 10(5), 597–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (1990). Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3(1), 159–173.Google Scholar
  33. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27–34.Google Scholar
  34. Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2004). Privatization and its reverse: Explaining the dynamics of the government contracting process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holst, O. (1981). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  36. Hondeghem, A. (1998). Ethics and accountability in a context of governance and new public management. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaufmann, D., & Siegelbaum, P. (1997). Privatization and corruption in transition economies. Journal of International Affairs, 50(2), 419–458.Google Scholar
  39. Kikeri, S., & Nellis, J. (2001). Privatisation in competitive sectors: The record so far in mimeo, private sector advisory services. Washington D.C: World Bank.Google Scholar
  40. Klijn, E. H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. La Porta, R., López-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2002). Investor protection and corporate valuation. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 1147–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laffont, J. J., & Meleu, M. (1999). A positive theory of privatization for sub-saharan africa. Journal of African Economics, 60(2), 271–295.Google Scholar
  44. Lawton, A. (1998). Ethical management for the public services. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Legreid, P., & Roness, P. G. (2003). Administrative reform programs and institutional response in Norwegian central government. In J. J. Hesse, C. Hood, & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Paradoxen in civil service reform. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  46. Maesschalck, J. (2004). The impact of New Public Management reforms on public servants’ ethics: Toward a theory. Public Administration, 82(2), 465–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Manzetti, L. (1999). Privatization south america style. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Marelli, M., & Stroffolini, F. (1998). Privatization in Italy, a tale of capture. In D. Parker (Ed.), Privatization in the European union. Theory and policy perspectives. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., & Ferlie, E. (2002). New Public Management: Current trends and future prospects. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Megginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. (2001). From State to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 321–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Newman, J. (2001). Modernising governance: New labour, policy and society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2008). The State ownership report 2008,
  53. OECD. (2000). Privatisation, competition and regulation. Paris: Centre for Co-operation with Non-Members.Google Scholar
  54. OECD. (2003a). Privatising state-owned enterprises. An overview of policies and practices in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  55. OECD. (2003b). Regulatory reform in Norway. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. OECD. (2005). Managing conflict of interest in the public sector: A toolkit. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  57. OECD. (2006). Public ethics and governance: Standards and practices in comparative perspective. Elsevier Ltd.Google Scholar
  58. O’Dwyer, B., & Madden, G. (2006). Ethical codes of conduct in Irish companies: A survey of code content and enforcement procedures. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(3), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olsen, J. P. (1992). Analyzing institutional dynamics. Staatswissenschaften und Staats-praxis, 2(1), 247–271.Google Scholar
  60. Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Osborne, S. (2009). Debate: Delivering public services: Are we asking the right questions? Public Money and Management, 29(1), 5–7.Google Scholar
  62. Paul, S. (1992). Accountability in public services: Exit, voice and control. World Development, 20(7), 1047–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Parker, D., & Saal, D. (2003). International handbook on privatization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  64. Pestoff, V. (1992). Cooperative social services an alternative to privatization. Journal of Consumer Policy, 15(1), 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pestoff, V. (2008). Citizens as co-producers of welfare services: Childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1998). Analyzing media messages using quantitative content analysis in research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  69. Saraceno, P. (1981). Il sistema delle partecipazioni statali. Economia e politica industriale., 29(1), 35–71.Google Scholar
  70. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2003). Final Rule: Disclosure Required by Sections 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Release Nos. 33-8177; 34-47235.Google Scholar
  71. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). The grabbing hand, government pathologies and their cures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Smith, R. F. I., Anderson, E., & Teicher, J. (2004). Toward public value? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(4), 14–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  74. Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Strom, K. (2003). Parliamentary democracy and delegation. In K. Strom, W. Müller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Wart, M., & Berman, E. M. (1999). Contemporary public sector productivity values. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22(3), 326–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  79. Zahra, S. A., Ireland, D., Gutierrez, I., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). Privatization and entrepreneurial transformation: Emerging issues and a future research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 509–527.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business StudiesUniversity of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations